Sri.P.Tirumala Rao

CC.No.955/2026 1/11 Dated 07.04.2026

APKR050017192026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No.955/2026

1.Date of offence19.06.2024

2.Date of report19.06.2024

3.Date of apprehension of -- accused

4.Date of release on bail--

5.Date of commencement of 23.03.2026 trial

6.Date of closure of trial23.03.2026

7.Date of JUDGMENT07.04.2026

8.Name of the ComplainantS.I. of Police, Gunadala Police Station, Vijayawada City.

9.Name of the Accused 1. Boppana Sri Krishna Prasad, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Age 28 years, D.No.4-149, Badevari Street, near watertank,Enikepadu, Vijayawada.

Rider of motorcycle bearing No: TS 04 ET 0969.

2.Boppana Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Prasada Rao, Age 54 years, D.No.4-149, Badevari Street, near watertank,Enikepadu, Vijayawada.

Owner of motorcycle bearing No: TS 04 ET 0969.

10.Offence u/S.304-A of IPC against A1 and

CC.No.955/2026 2/11 Dated 07.04.2026

u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against A2.

11.FINDING Not guilty

12.SENTENCE Acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C

13.Explanation for Delay: Cognizance of case was taken on file u/Sec.304-A of IPC against A1 and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against A2 on 24.02.2026. On 11.03.2026 copies were furnished to both the accused, they were examined under Section 251

Cr.P.C. On 23.03.2026 P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.P1 to

P15 are marked and prosecution evidence is closed. On 26.03.2026 accused are examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and heard the arguments. Judgment is pronounced on 07.04.2026.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. Copy to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Vijayawada. Copy to the Accused.

CC.No.955/2026 3/11 Dated 07.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present : Sri P.Tirumala Rao

III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.955 of 2026

Between

The State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Gunadala Police...Complainant

Station, Vijayawada City.

And

1.Boppana Sri Krishna Prasad, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Age 28 years, D.No.4-149, Badevari Street, near water tank, Enikepadu, Vijayawada.

Rider of motorcycle bearing No: TS 04 ET 0969.

2.Boppana Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Prasada Rao, Age 54 years, D.No.4-149, Badevari Street, near water tank, Enikepadu, Vijayawada.

...Accused

Owner of motorcycle bearing No: TS 04 ET 0969.

This case is coming on 26.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Gunadala Police Station filed Police

Report in Cr.No.109/2024 for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC against A1 and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against A2.

2) The brief allegations in the police report are as follows:

2.a) On 19.06.2024 at about 9.45 a.m while the deceased by name A.Sugrivulu was walking with LW1/A.Durga Prasad (PW1) and

CC.No.955/2026 4/11 Dated 07.04.2026

LW2/A.Ramu at SLV Road, near Ramavarappadu Flyover, Vijayawada, A1 being the rider of motorcycle bearing No. TS 04 ET 0969, rode the same in rash and negligent manner, at high speed and without blowing horn, dashed behind the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down in unconscious state, sustained severe bleeding injuries on his body and forehead. He was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment. On 20.06.2024 the deceased died of injuries, while undergoing treatment.

LW11/M.Rama Krishna Rao/ASI of Police recorded the statement of injured/deceased.

2.b) LW12/D.Samba Sivarao/Head Constable received the said statement, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.109/2024 and investigated into. He examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. LW13/K.Purnima Ramani/W.S.I of Police (PW3) received the death intimation of the deceased. LW1/A.Durga

Prasad (PW1) gave report about the death of the deceased and altered the

Section of law to 304-A of IPC. She visited the Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and inquest report was prepared. She sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. On 23.06.2024 she served notice under Sec 41-A of Cr.P.C on the accused and obtained reply. LW10/K.Siva Rama Gowd/Asst.

Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI Accident

Report. LW12/Dr.K.Sri Ram/Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate.After completion of investigation, LW14/V.Srinu/Inspector of Police filed police report. Thus, A1 is liable for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and A2 is liable for the offence punishable under Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act as he is owner of crime motorcycle which was not insured. Hence, the Charge.

CC.No.955/2026 5/11 Dated 07.04.2026

3) Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A of

IPC against A1 and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against A2.

4) On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5) A1 and A2 were examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under u/Sec.304-A of IPC against A1 and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against A2.

They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8) Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned

Counsel for both the Accused.

9) Now, the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable

doubt that A1 committed the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of

IPC and A2 committed the offence punishable u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of

M.V.Act , as alleged by the prosecution?”

10) P O I N T:-

In order to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt, it is for the prosecution to establish that A1 being the rider

CC.No.955/2026 6/11 Dated 07.04.2026

of crime motorcycle bearing No. TS 04 ET 0969, rode the same in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident in which, the deceased by name

A.Sugrivulu sustained severe injuries and subsequently, succumbed to injuries and thereby, he committed the offence punishable under u/Sec.304-A of IPC; A2 who is the owner of crime motorcycle, without getting insured the said motorcycle, gave it to A1 for riding and thereby, he committed the offence punishable and under Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P1 to

P15.

11) PW1 deposed that on 19.06.2024 at about 10.00 a.m when he was at his working place, he received information that the deceased met with an accident on SLV Road, near Ramavarapadu Flyover, Vijayawada.

Immediately he went to the place of accident and noticed the injured/ deceased with injuries to his legs and all over the body. The injured was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada. He informed about the accident to LWs.3 to 5 viz., A.Nagamani, A.Venkatesh and S.Vara

Lakshmi. On 20.06.2024 the deceased succumbed to injuries.

12) PW2 who is the wife of deceased deposed that on 19.06.2024 at about 11.30 a.m when she was at her house, she received information that her husband met with an accident near Ramavarapadu Flyover, Vijayawada and was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada.

Immediately she went to the hospital and noticed that her husband was undergoing treatment. On the next day of accident, her husband succumbed to injuries. After competition of inquest and postmortem examination the dead body was handed over to her.

13) PW3/Investigating Officerdeposed that on 19.06.2024 at about 6.00 p.m LW12/D.Samba Siva Rao/Head Constable received Ex.P5/hospital

CC.No.955/2026 7/11 Dated 07.04.2026

intimation of the injured/deceased by name Sugreevulu along with

Ex.P6/statement of PW1, registered Ex.P6 as a case in Cr.No. 109/2024 u/Sec.337 of IPC and submitted Ex.P7/FIR to all concerned; visited the

Hospital, examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1, 2 and

LW2/A.Ramu; visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P8/rough sketch.

She further deposed that on 20.06.2024 at 8.30 p.m she received Ex.P9/death intimation of the deceased. At the same time PW1 came to Police Station and presented Ex.P10/report. She altered the Section of Law from 337 of IPC to 304-A of IPC and submitted Ex.P11/Section alteration FIR to all concerned.

She visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of two mediators i.e. LW6/LRama Rao and LW7/P.Syamala Rao. Ex.P12/scene observation report was prepared. On 21.06.2024 she held inquest over the dead body of deceased by name Aravalli Sugreevulu in the presence of inquest panchayatdars i.e. LW6/L.Rama Rao, LW7/P.Syamala Rao and

LW8/L.Yogeswara Rao. Ex.P13/inquest report was prepared. She sent the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination. During inquest, she examined and recorded the statements of LW4/A.Venkatesh and LW5/S.Vara

Lakshmi besides re-examining and recorded the statements of Pws.1, 2 and

LW2/A.Ramu. Subsequently she received Ex.P14/ postmortem certificate.

14) As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P5/Hospital

Intimation, Ex.P6/Statement of PW1, Ex.P10/Report of PW1, Ex.P13/Inquest

Report and Ex.P14/Postmortem Certificate, while the deceased by name

A.Sugrivuluwas walking on SLV Road, near Ramavarappadu Flyover,

Vijayawada, he met with an accident by a motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, died of injuries in the hospital, while undergoing treatment. Though PW3 deposed that the said motorcycle involved in the accident is the crime motorcycle, Pws.1 and 2 did not depose that the accident was taken place by the crime motorcycle. A1 and A2 also denied the

CC.No.955/2026 8/11 Dated 07.04.2026

evidence of PW3 in respect of involvement of crime motorcycle in the accident.

15) A1 did not deny the said oral evidence of witnesses and also the documentary evidence. A1 also did not deny the accident to the deceased and also his death due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The contentions of

A1 are that he is not the rider of crime motorcycle involved in the accident and he did not ride the crime motorcycle in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident.

16) In order to connect A1 as rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident, PW3/Investigating Officer deposed that on 23.06.2024 when she was present in Police Station, A1 and A2 themselves surrendered before her and produced the crime motorcycle i.e., Bullet bearing No. TS 04 ET 0969.

She served notice under Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C on A1 and A2 and obtained replies. She sent requisition to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection of crime vehicle and subsequently, received Ex.P15/MVI Accident Report. As per the evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.P15, the accident was not occurred due to mechanical defects of crime motorcycle. Both the accused denied the said evidence of PW3 and contended that A1 is not the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident and they themselves neither surrendered before PW3 nor produced the crime motorcycle and they were falsely implicated in this case.

17) In support of its case, the prosecution also examined P.Ws.1 and 2.

PW1 deposed that on information he went to the place of accident and noticed the injured/deceased with injuries to his legs and all over the body. He was not informed by anybody about the crime vehicle and its rider. PW2 who is the wife of deceased who is not the eye witness to the accident deposed that she was not informed by anybody about the crime vehicle, its number besides its rider. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not helpful to

CC.No.955/2026 9/11 Dated 07.04.2026

establish that A1 is the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident. Since there is no other oral or documentary evidence in support of the evidence of

PW3/Investigating Officer, this Court is of opinion that the sole testimony of

PW3 is not sufficient to establish that A1 is the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident.

18) In respect of rash or negligent riding of crime motorcycle by A1 at the time of accident is concerned, PW1 deposed that he was not informed by anybody about the manner of accident. Moreover, PW1 further deposed that in the hospital his signature was obtained on a written paper but he did not know the contents of said written paper. Ex.P1 is his signature on Ex.P6/

Statement dt:19.06.2024. He also deposed that his signature was obtained on a written paper, but he does not know the contents of said written paper.

Ex.P2is his signature on Ex.P10/Report dt:20.06.2024. PW2 alsodeposed that she did not witness the accident and she was not informed by anybody about the manner of accident. Since PWs.1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned A.P.P was permitted to put questions to them in the from of cross-examination as per the provision under Sec.154 of Indian

Evidence Act. Even during the said questions, they did not support the case of prosecution and denied their respective suggestions. The statements under

Sec.161 of Cr.P.C of Pws.1 and 2 are marked as Exs.P3 and P4. Hence, this

Court is of opinion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the rash or negligent riding of crime motorcycle by its rider at the time of accident.

19) In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court holds that though the prosecution established that the deceased met with an accident by a motorcycle, while proceeding on the road by walk, sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed to injuries in the hospital, while undergoing treatment; it failed to establish the involvement of crime motorcycle in the

CC.No.955/2026 10/11 Dated 07.04.2026

accident and that A1 is the rider of crime motorcycle and he rode the same in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident; and the prosecution also failed to establish that the crime motorcycle which was not insured, involved in the accident and A2 gave the same to A1 for riding and thereby, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal. The Point is answered accordingly.

20)IN THE RESULT, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act and they are acquitted for the same u/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per the provision u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

21) There is no order for disposal of property as no property was seized and produced before the Court.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : A.Durga Prasad -None- P.W.2 : A.Nagamani P.W.3 : K.Purnima Ramani

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on the statement, dt.19.06.2024. Ex.P2 : Signature of PW1 on the report, dt.20.06.2024. Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.

CC.No.955/2026 11/11 Dated 07.04.2026

Ex.P4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P5 : Hospital Intimation. Ex.P6 : Statement of PW1. Ex.P7 : First Information Report. Ex.P8 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P9 : Death intimation of deceased. Ex.P10: Report of PW1. Ex.P11: Section Alteration FIR. Ex.P12: Scene observation Report. Ex.P13: Inquest report. Ex.P14 : Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P15: Motor Vehicle Inspector Accident Report.

For Defence: -Nil-

M.Os. MARKED -Nil-

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III ACJM, VJA.

CC.No.956/2026 1/10 Dated 07.04.2026

APKR050017202026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No.956/2026

1.Date of offence30.06.2024

2.Date of report05.07.2024

3.Date of apprehension of -- accused

4.Date of release on bail--

5.Date of commencement of 11.03.2026 trial

6.Date of closure of trial23.03.2026

7.Date of JUDGMENT07.04.2026

8.Name of the ComplainantS.I. of Police, Gunadala Police Station, Vijayawada City.

9.Name of the Accused Sadi Raghu Sai Ram Reddy, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 28 years, D.No.7-4-24/A, Panja Center, Mahanthipuram, Vijayawada.

Rider of motorcycle bearing No: AP 21 CE 1455.

10.Offence u/S.304-A of IPC and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of

M.V.Act

11.FINDING Not guilty

12.SENTENCE Acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C

13.Explanation for Delay: Cognizance of case was taken on file 304-A of

IPC and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against the accused on

CC.No.956/2026 2/10 Dated 07.04.2026

25.02.2026. On 11.03.2026 copies were furnished to the accused, he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.P1 to P4 are marked. On 23.03.2026 P.W.4 is examined and Exs.P5 to P15 are marked and prosecution evidence is closed. On 26.03.2026 accused is examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and heard the arguments. Judgment is

pronounced on 07.04.2026. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. Copy to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Vijayawada. Copy to the Accused.

CC.No.956/2026 3/10 Dated 07.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present : Sri P.Tirumala Rao

III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.956 of 2026

Between

The State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Gunadala Police...Complainant

Station, Vijayawada City.

And

Sadi Raghu Sai Ram Reddy, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 28 years, D.No.7-4-24/A, Panja Center, Mahanthipuram, Vijayawada.

...Accused

Rider of motorcycle bearing No: AP 21 CE 1455.

This case is coming on 26.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Gunadala Police Station filed Police

Report in Cr.No.111/2024 for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against the accused.

2) The brief allegations in the police report are as follows:

2.a) On 30.06.2024 at about 11.50 p.m while the deceased by name R.Chinnayya was walking at opposite to Kendriya Vidyalayam, Bhanu

CC.No.956/2026 4/10 Dated 07.04.2026

Nagar, BRTS road, Vijayawada, the accused being the rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 21 CE 1455, rode the same in rash and negligent manner, at high speed and without blowing horn, dashed behind the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down, his two teeth were broken, sustained severe injury below his knees, back side of his head and abrasion injuries on his body. He was shifted to the Government General Hospital for treatment. On 05.07.2024 the deceased died of injuries, while undergoing treatment.

LW15/M.V.Ramana/Head Constable recorded the statement of

LW1/M.Samba Siva Rao (PW1).

2.b) LW16/D.Samba Siva Rao/Head Constable received the said report, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.111/2024 and took-up investigation.

He visited the Hospital and also scene of offence. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. He examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. LW17/K.Purnima Ramani/W.S.I of Police (PW4) received the death intimation of the deceased and also the Report of LW1/M.Sambasiva

Rao (PW1). She altered the Section of Law to 304-A of IPC. She visited the

Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and inquest report was prepared. She sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. On 10.07.2024 she served notice under Sec 41-A of Cr.P.C on the accused and obtained reply. LW14/K.Siva Rama Gowd/Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI Accident Report. LW18/Dr.K.Sri

Ram/Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate.After completion of investigation,

LW14/V.Srinu/Inspector of Police filed police report. Thus, the accused is liable for the offences punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and under Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act as he is also the owner of crime motorcycle which was not insured. Hence, the Charge.

CC.No.956/2026 5/10 Dated 07.04.2026

3) Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A of

IPC and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against the accused.

4) On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5) Accused was examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under u/Sec.304-A of IPC and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against the accused.

He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8) Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned

Counsel for the Accused.

9) Now, the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable

doubt that accused committed the offences punishable under

Sec.304-A of IPC and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act , as alleged by

the prosecution?”

10) P O I N T:-

In order to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused being the owner

CC.No.956/2026 6/10 Dated 07.04.2026

and also rider of crime motorcycle bearing No. AP 21 CE 1455 which was not insured, rode the same in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident in which, the deceased by name R.Chinnayya sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries in the hospital, while undergoing treatment and thereby, he committed the offences punishable under u/Sec.304-A of IPC and u/Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.P1 to P15.

11) PW1 deposed that on 30.06.2024 at about 10.00 p.m when he was at BRTS road, near Kendriya Vidhyalayam, he came to know that the deceased met with an accident by a motorcycle opposite to Kendriya

Vidhyalayam, Bhanu Nagar, Vijayawada. Immediately he went to the place of accident and shifted the injured/deceased to the Government General

Hospidtal, Vijayawada. He informed about the accident to LW2/R.Ganesh.

Subsequently, he came to know that the deceased succumbed to injuries on 05.07.2024.

12) PW2 who is the son of deceaseddeposed that on 10.11.2020 at about 11.00 p.m when he was at his house, he received information from PW1 that his father met with an accident by a motorcycle opposite to Kendriya

Vidhyalayam, Bhanu Nagar, Vijayawada and was shifted to the Government

General Hospital, Vijayawada. Immediately he went to the hospital and noticed that his father was undergoing treatment. Five days after the accident his father succumbed to injuries. After completion of inquest and postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to them.

13) PW4/Investigating Officer deposed that on 30.06.2024 at about 11.50 p.m LW16/D.Samba Siva Rao/Head Constable received Ex.P5/hospital intimation of the injured/deceased by name Regadi Chinnaiah along with

Ex.P6/statement of PW1. He registered Ex.P6 as a Case in Cr.No.111/2024

CC.No.956/2026 7/10 Dated 07.04.2026

u/Sec.337 of IPC and submitted Ex.P7/FIR to all concerned. He took-up investigation, visited the Hospital, examined and recorded the statements of

PWs.1 to 3 and LW3/L.Vasu. He visited the scene of offence and prepared

Ex.P8/rough sketch. She further deposed that she took-up further investigation. On 05.07.2024 she received Ex.P9/death intimation of the deceased along with Ex.P10/report of PW1. She altered the Section of law from 337 of IPC to 304-A of IPC and submitted Ex.P11/Section alteration FIR to all concerned. She visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of two mediators i.e LW8/Y.Rama Krishna and LW9/G.Srikanth.

Ex.P12/scene observation report was prepared. On the same day she visited the Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars i.e. LW10/L.Mangaiah, LW11/K.Simhachalam and

LW12/B.Neelakantam. Ex.P13/Inquest report was prepared. She sent the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination. During inquest, she examined and recorded the statements of LW5/Y.Ganesh, LW6/N.Sankar Rao and LW7/R.Ravi besides re-examining and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3 and LW3/L.Vasu. Subsequently, she received Ex.P14/postmortem certificate.

14) As per the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 coupled with Ex.P5/Hospital intimation, Ex.P6/Statement of PW1, Ex.P9/death intimation, Ex.P10/Report of

PW1, Ex.P13/inquest report and Ex.P14/postmortem certificate, the deceased while the deceased by name R.Chinnayya was crossing the road opposite to

Kendriya Vidyalayam, Bhanunagar, Vijayawada, he met with an accident by a motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, died of injuries in the hospital, while undergoing treatment. Though PW4 deposed that the said motorcycle involved in the accident is the crime motorcycle, Pws.1 to 3 did not depose that the accident was taken place by the crime motorcycle. The

CC.No.956/2026 8/10 Dated 07.04.2026

accused si also denied the evidence of PW4 in respect of involvement of crime motorcycle in the accident.

15) In order to connect the accused as rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident, PW4 deposed that on 10.07.2024 when he was present in

Police Station, the accused himself surrendered before her and produced the crime motorcycle bearing No. AP 21 CE 1455. She served notice under

Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C on the accused and obtained reply. She sent requisition to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection of crime vehicle and subsequently, received Ex.P15/MVI Accident Report. As per the evidence of PW4 coupled with Ex.P15, the accident was not occurred due to mechanical defects of crime motorcycle. The accused denied the said evidence of PW4 and contended that he is not the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident and he neither surrendered before PW4 nor produced the crime motorcycle and he was falsely implicated in this case.

16) In support of its case, the prosecution also examined P.Ws.1 to 3.

PW1 deposed that on information he went to the place of accident and shifted the injured/deceased to the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada. He was not informed by anybody about the crime vehicle, its number besides the rider. PW2 who is the son of deceased deposed that he was not informed by anybody about the crime vehicle, its number besides rider. PW3 deposed that he did not witness the accident and he does not know anything about the accident. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is not helpful to establish that the accused is the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident. Since there is no other oral or documentary evidence in support of the evidence of PW4/Investigating Officer, this Court is of opinion that the sole testimony of PW4 is not sufficient to establish that the accused is the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident.

CC.No.956/2026 9/10 Dated 07.04.2026

17) In respect of rash or negligent riding of crime motorcycle by the accused at the time of accident is concerned, PW1 deposed that he was not informed by anybody about the manner of accident. Moreover, PW1 further deposed that in the hospital his signature was obtained on a written paper, but he does not know the contents of said written paper. Ex.P1 is his signature on

Ex.P1/Statement, dt:30.06.2024. PW2 alsodeposed that he was not informed by anybody about the manner of accident. PW3 deposed that he did not witness the accident he does not know anything about the accident. Since

PWs.1 to 3 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned A.P.P was permitted to put questions to them in the from of cross-examination as per the provision under Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act. Even during the said questions, they did not support the case of prosecution and denied their respective suggestions. The statements under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C of PWs.1 to 3 are marked as Exs.P2 to P4. Hence, this Court is of opinion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the rash or negligent riding of crime motorcycle by its rider and caused the accident.

18) In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court holds that though the prosecution established that the deceased met with an accident by a motorcycle, while crossing the road on foot, sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed to injuries in the hospital, while undergoing treatment; it failed to establish the involvement of crime motorcycle in the accident and that the accused being the owner and also rider of said crime motorcycle which was not insured, rode the same in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident and thereby, the accused is are entitled for acquittal.

The Point is answered accordingly.

19) IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC and u/Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act and he is acquitted for the same u/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused,

CC.No.956/2026 10/10 Dated 07.04.2026

if any shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per the provision u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

20) There is no order for disposal of property as no property was seized and produced before the Court.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2026. Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao, III Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : M.Samba Siva Rao -None- P.W.2 : R.Ganesh P.W.3 : J.Samba Siva Rao P.W.4 : K.Purnima Ramani

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on the statement, dt.30.6.2024. -Nil- Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5 : Hospital Intimation. Ex.P6 : Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P7 : First Information Report. Ex.P8 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P9 : Death intimation. Ex.P10: Report. Ex.P11: Section Alteration FIR. Ex.P12: Scene Observation Report. Ex.P13: Inquest Report. Ex.P14: Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P15: M.V.I. Accident Report. M.Os. MARKED -Nil-

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III ACJM, VJA.

CC.No.322/2021 1/10 Dated 09.04.2026

APKR050003792021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No.322/2021

1.Date of offence21.09.2020

2.Date of report21.09.2020

3.Date of apprehension of -- accused

4.Date of release on bail--

5.Date of commencement of trial27.01.2026

6.Date of closure of trial17.03.2026

7.Date of JUDGMENT09.04.2026

8.Name of the ComplainantS.I.of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station, Vijayawada City.

9.Name of the Accused Tammu Tirumala Rao, S/o Naga Raju, 21 yrs., Plot No.32, Lakshmipathi Nagar, Penamaluru, Vijayawada-9030205211. Rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 CM 2091.

10.Offence u/S.304-A of IPC, u/Secs.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act and u/Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act.

11.FINDING Not guilty

12.SENTENCE Acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C

13.Explanation for Delay: Cognizance of offence was taken under Section 304-A of IPC, u/Secs.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act and u/Sec.146

CC.No.322/2021 2/10 Dated 09.04.2026

r/w 196 of M.V. Act against the accused on 06.02.2021. Copies are furnished to the accused on 07.01.2022. On 20.05.2024 accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. On 27.01.2026 P.W.1 is examined and Ex.P1 is marked. On 10.02.2026 P.W.2 is examined and Exs.P2 and P3 are marked. On 23.02.2026 P.Ws.3 and 4 are examined and Exs.P4 and P5 are marked. On 17.03.2026 P.W.5 is examined and Exs.P6 to P14 are marked and prosecution evidence is closed. On 20.03.2026 accused is examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.

On 31.03.2026 heard the arguments. Judgment is pronounced on 09.04.2026. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. Copy to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Vijayawada. Copy to the Accused.

CC.No.322/2021 3/10 Dated 09.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

VIJAYAWADA

Present: - Sri P.Tirumala Rao,

III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 9th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.322/2021

Between :

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police...Complainant

Station, Vijayawada City.

And

Tammu Tirumala Rao, S/o Naga Raju, Age 21 years, Plot No.32, Lakshmipathi Nagar, Penamaluru, Vijayawada-9030205211.

Rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 CM 2091.….Accused

This case is coming on 31.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri P.Babu Rao, Advocate for accused; upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station filed police report against the accused in Cr.No.586/2020 for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC and u/Secs.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V. Act.

2. The brief allegations in the Police Report are as follows :

2.a) On 21.09.2020 at about 12.30 p.m while the deceased by name J.Appayamma was crossing the N.H-65 road, from Varadhi to Netaji bridge signal light center, beside Church, Ranigarithota, Krishnalanka,

CC.No.322/2021 4/10 Dated 09.04.2026

Vijayawada by walk, the accused being the rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 CM 2091, while proceeding from Varadhi to Benz Circle side, rode the same in rash and negligent manner, at high speed and without blowing horn, dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries on her face, head and went into unconscious state. She was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Guntur wherein she died on 25.09.2020.

LW1/G.Chandu (PW2) gave report to the Police.

2.b) LW16/I.V.S.Babu/Head Constable received the said report, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.586/2020 and took-up investigation.

He visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of two mediators and scene observation report was prepared. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. He examined and recorded the statements of all the prosecution witnesses. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and sent the dead-body of the deceased for postmortem examination. On 28.09.2020 he served notice u/Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C on the accused and obtained reply. LW13/Dr.B.Srinu

Naik/Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Postmortem Certificate. LW15/M.V.N.Raju/Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI Accident Report. After completion of investigation, LW17/S.Nageswara Rao/S.I of Police (PW5) filed police report. Thus, the accused is liable for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A of

IPC and u/Secs.134 (a) & (b) r/w. 187 and u/Sec.146 r/w. 196 of M.V.Act.

Hence, the Charge.

3) Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A of

IPC and u/Secs.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against the accused.

4) On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished

CC.No.322/2021 5/10 Dated 09.04.2026

to him as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5) Accused was examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the substance of accusation for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-

A of IPC, u/Secs.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act against the accused in Telugu. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8) Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9) Now, the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable

doubt that the accusedcommitted the offences punishable

u/Sec.304-A of IPC and u/Secs.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 and u/Sec.146

r/w.196 of M.V.Act, as alleged by the prosecution?”

10) P O I N T :

In order to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused being the owner and also rider of crime motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 CM 2091 which was not insured, rode the same in rash or negligent manner and a dashed the deceased by name J.Appayyamma who sustained grievous injuries and died of injuries in the hospital; and the accused has neither provided treatment to

CC.No.322/2021 6/10 Dated 09.04.2026

the injured/deceased nor given information/report to the Police about the accident and thereby, he committed the offences punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and under Secs. 134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 and under Sec.146 r/w.196 of

M.V.Act. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

Pws.1 to 5, coupled with Exs.P1 to P14.

11) PW1 who is the son of deceased deposed that on 21.09.2020 during evening hours he received information that his mother met with an accident on N.H-65 road, i.e. from Varadhi to Nethaji Bridge side, Single Light

Center, beside Church, Ranigarithota, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada and was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur. Immediately he along with

LW6/G.Malleswara Rao went to the hospital and noticed the dead body of the deceased. After completion of inquest and postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to them. He was informed that while his mother was proceeding on foot, she was dashed by a motorcycle.

12) PW5/Investigating Officer deposed that on 21.09.2020 at about 4.00 p.m PW2 came to Police Station and presented Ex.P6/Report.

LW16/L.V.S.Babu, Head Constable registered Ex.P6 as a case in

Cr.No.586/2020 u/Sec.338 of IPC and submitted Ex.P7/FIR to all concerned; he took-up investigation, examined and recorded the statement of PW2; visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of two mediators i.e., LW9/N.Venkateswara Rao and LW10/N.Vijaya Babu and

Ex.P8/scene observation report was prepared; prepared Ex.P9/rough sketch of the scene of offence; examined and recorded the statements of Pws 3 and

4. PW5 further deposed that on 26.09.2020 he received Ex.P10/death intimation of the deceased by name J.Appayamma from the Government

General Hospital, Guntur. He altered the Section of Law from 338 of IPC to 304 A of IPC and submitted Ex.P11/Section alteration FIR to all concerned.

He took-up investigation. On 27.09.2020 he visited the Hospital and held

CC.No.322/2021 7/10 Dated 09.04.2026

inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars i.e. LW11/N.Pentalah, LW12/N.Srinu and LW13/K.Appala

Raju. Ex.P12/inquest report was prepared. He sent the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination. During inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1, LW5/J.Gowri Appadu, LW6/G.Malleswara

Rao and LW7/J.Suri Babu. Subsequently, he received Ex.P13/postmortem certificate.

13) As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 coupled with Ex.P6/Report,

Ex.P12/Inquest Report and Ex.P13/Postmortem Certificate, the deceased met with an accident by a motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, died of injuries in the hospital, while undergoing treatment.

Though PW5 deposed that the crime motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 CM 2091 involved in the accident is the crime motorcycle, Pw.1 did not depose that the accident was taken place by the crime motorcycle. To prove that the motorcycle involved in the accident is the crime motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 CM 2091, the prosecution examined independent witnesses as Pws.2 to 4.

They did not depose about the accident and also involvement of crime motorcycle. The accused is also denied the evidence of PW5 in respect of involvement of crime motorcycle in the accident.

14) In order to connect the accused to the crime motorcycle bearing No.

AP 07 CM 2091 as its rider at the time of accident, PW5/Investigating Officer deposed that on 28.09.2020 when he was present in Police Station, the accused himself surrendered before him and produced the crime motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 CM 2091. He served notice under Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C on the accused and obtained reply. He sent requisition to the Motor Vehicle

Inspector for inspection of crime vehicle and subsequently, received

Ex.P14/MVI Accident Report. As per the evidence of PW5 coupled with

CC.No.322/2021 8/10 Dated 09.04.2026

Ex.P14, the accident was not occurred due to mechanical defects of crime motorcycle. The accused denied the said evidence of PW5 and contended that he is not the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident and he neither surrendered before PW5 nor produced the crime motorcycle and he was falsely implicated in this case.

15) In support of the evidence of PW5, the prosecution also examined

P.Ws.1 to 4. PW1 deposed that he was not informed by anybody about the crime vehicle and its number. Pws.2 to 4 deposed that they did not witness the accident and they do not know anything about the accident. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is not helpful to establish that the accused is the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident. Since there is no other oral or documentary evidence in support of the evidence of

PW5/Investigating Officer, this Court is of opinion that the sole testimony of

PW5 is not sufficient to establish that the accused is the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident.

16) In respect of rash or negligent riding of crime motorcycle by the accused at the time of accident is concerned, PW1 deposed that he was not informed by anybody about the manner of accident. PW2 deposed that he did not witness the accident and he does not know anything about the accident.

Moreover, PW2 further deposed that about 4 years back on one day when he went to Police Station, his signature was obtained on a written paper, but he did not know the contents of said written paper. Ex.P2 is his signature on the

Report, dt.29.01.2020. Pws.3 and 4 deposed that they did not witness the accident they do not know anything about the accident. Since PWs.1 to 4 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned A.P.P was permitted to put questions to them in the from of cross-examination as per the provision under

Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act. Even during the said questions, they did not support the case of prosecution and denied their respective suggestions. The

CC.No.322/2021 9/10 Dated 09.04.2026

statements under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C of PWs.1 to 4 are marked as Exs.P1 and

P3 to P5. Hence, this Court is of opinion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the rash or negligent riding of crime motorcycle by its rider and caused the accident.

17) In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court holds that though the prosecution established that the deceased met with an accident by a motorcycle, while crossing the road on foot, sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed to injuries in the hospital, while undergoing treatment; it failed to establish the involvement of crime motorcycle in the accident and it was not insured and he rode the same in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident. Since the prosecution failed to connect the accused to the crime motorcycle as its rider at the time of accident, there is no need for him to give information to the Police about the accident and to provide treatment to the injured/deceased and thereby, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offences with which he is charged. The Point is answered accordingly.

18) IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC and u/Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w 187 and u/Sec.146 r/w.196 of M.V.Act and he is acquitted for the same u/Sec.255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per the provision u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

19) There is no order for disposal of property as no property was seized and produced before the Court.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 9th day of April, 2026.Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao, III Additional Chief Judicial

CC.No.322/2021 10/10 Dated 09.04.2026

Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : J.Suri Appadu -None- P.W.2 : G.Chandu P.W.3 : V.Srinu P.W.4 : V.Yellaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. -Nil- Ex.P2 : Signature of PW1 on the report, dt.21.09.2020. Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P6 : Report of P.W.2. Ex.P7 : First Information Report. Ex.P8 : Scene observation report. Ex.P9 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P10 : Death intimation. Ex.P11: Section Alteration FIR. Ex.P12: Inquest Report. Ex.P13: Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P14: M.V.I. Accident Report.

M.Os. MARKED -Nil-

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III ACJM, VJA.

CC.No.1705/20211/10 Dated 08.04.2026

APKR050018502021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No.1705/2021

1.Date of offence05.10.2021

2.Date of report09.10.2021

3.Date of apprehension of -- accused

4.Date of release on bail--

5.Date of commencement of 24.11.2025 trial

6.Date of closure of trial16.03.2026

7.Date of JUDGMENT08.04.2026

8.Name of the ComplainantS.I.of Police, L & O II Town Police Station, Vijayawada City.

9.Name of the AccusedAdil Jain, S/o Pradeep Kumar, Age 26 years, D.No. 27-34-20, Samba Enclave, II Floor, Rajagopalachari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada.

Rider of Activa motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 CZ 7095

10.Offence u/S.304-A of IPC

11.FINDING Not guilty

12.SENTENCE Acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C

13.Explanation for Delay: Cognizance of case was taken on file under

CC.No.1705/20212/10 Dated 08.04.2026

Sec.304-A of IPC against accused on 28.07.2021. Copies were furnished to the accused on 01.09.2022. On 28.05.2024 accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. On 24.11.2025 P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.P1 to P3 are marked. On 24.03.2026 P.W.3 is examined and Exs.P4 to P10 are marked and prosecution evidence is closed. On 26.03.2026 accused is examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and heard the arguments.

Judgment is pronounced on 08.04.2026. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. Copy to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Vijayawada. Copy to the Accused.

CC.No.1705/20213/10 Dated 08.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

VIJAYAWADA

Present: - Sri P.Tirumala Rao,

III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 8th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.1705/2021

Between :

Sub-Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Police Station, ...Complainant

Vijayawada City.

And

Adil Jain, S/o Pradeep Kumar, Age 26 years, D.No. 27-34-20, Samba Enclave, II Floor, Rajagopalachari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada.

Rider of Activa motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 CZ 7095….Accused

This case is coming on 26.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri Y.Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Police Station filed police report against the accused in Cr.No.259/2020 for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC.

2. The brief allegations in the police report are as follows:

2.a) On 04.08.2020 at about 10.30 p.m while the deceased by name L.Chandu was sleeping on the middle lane of BRTS Road, opposite to

Chicken and Fish market, Durgapuram, BRTS Road, Vijayawada, the accused being the rider of Activa two wheeler bearing No. AP 16 CZ 7095, rode the same in rash and negligent manner and ran over the chest of deceased. As a

CC.No.1705/20214/10 Dated 08.04.2026

result, the deceased died at the place of accident. The accused fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The accused was shifted to the hospital for treatment. LW15/R.Sujatha/Woman Head Constable recorded the statement of accused. LW1/N.Madhu (PW1) also gave report to the Police.

2.b) LW16/Ch.Suresh/Head Constable received the said report, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.259/2020. LW17/K.Sarala/S.I of Police (PW3) took-up investigation, visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of two mediators and scene observation report was prepared.

She prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. She examined and recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses. She visited the

Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and inquest report was prepared. She sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. She served notice u/Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C on the accused and obtained reply. LW13/G.Naga Murali/Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI Accident Report. LW14/Dr.P.Mahesh/Medical

Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

Postmortem Report. After completion of investigation, LW17/K.Sarala/S.I of

Police (PW3) filed police report. Thus, the accused is liable for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC. Hence, the Charge.

3) Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC against the accused.

4) On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5) The accused was examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under

CC.No.1705/20215/10 Dated 08.04.2026

Sec.304-A of IPC in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 3. Exs.P1 to P10 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8) Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9) Now, the points for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable under

Sec.304-A of IPC, as alleged by the prosecution?

10) POINT :

In order to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused being the rider of

Activa two wheeler bearing No. AP 16 CZ 7095, rode the same in rash or negligent manner and ran over the deceased by name L.Chandu, while he was sleeping in the middle lane of BRTS Road, resulting in, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died at the place of accident and thereby, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P1 to P10.

11) PW1 who is the cousin of deceased deposed that on 04.08.2020 at about 3.00 a.m while he was downloading the cocks/hens from a van on

CC.No.1705/20216/10 Dated 08.04.2026

BRTS road, opposite to Chicken and Fish market, Durgapuram, Vijayawada, the deceased slept in the middle lane which is not meant for plying of vehicles.

At that time the rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 CZ 7095 rode the same at high speed and ran over the deceased, resulting in, the deceased sustained severe injuries. The deceased was shifted to the Government General

Hospital, Vijayawada. The Doctor examined the deceased and declared that he was brought dead.

12) PW2 who is the wife of deceased deposed that on 04.08.2020 at about 4.30 am when she was at their village, PW1 rang-up to her and informed that her husband met with an accident on BRTS Road, opposite to

Chicken and Fish market, Durgapuram, Vijayawada and he was shifted to the

Government General Hospital, Vijayawada. Immediately they came to

Vijayawada, went to the hospital and noticed the dead body of the deceased.

After completion of inquest and postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to them. PW1 informed her that the deceased slept in the middle lane of BRTS Road which is not meant for plying of vehicles and the rider of a two wheeler rode the same at high speed and ran over the deceased, resulting in, the deceased sustained severe injuries.

13) PW3/Investigating Officer deposed that on 05.08.2020 at about 6.00 a.m PW1 came to Police Station and presented Ex.P4/report.

LW16/Ch.Suresh/Head Constable received Ex.P4 and registered it as a case in Cr.No.259/2020 for the offence u/Sec.304-A of IPC and submitted

Ex.P5/FIR to all concerned. She received copy of FIR and took-up investigation. She examined and recorded the statement of PW1. She visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of two mediators i.e.,

LW10/A.Tirupathi Reddy and LW11/K.Durga Rao. Ex.P6/scene observation report was prepared. She prepared Ex.P7/rough sketch of the scene of offence. She shifted the crime Honda Activa two wheeler bearing No. AP 16

CC.No.1705/20217/10 Dated 08.04.2026

CZ 7095 to the premises of Police Station from the scene of offence. She examined and recorded the statement of LW6/D.Vamsi. She visited the

Hospital, held inquest over the dead body of deceased by name Chandu in the presence of inquest panchayatdars i.e., LW7/N.Rama Swamy.

LW8/M.Mahesh and LW9/N.Sai Kumar. Ex.P8/inquest report was prepared.

During inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of PW2,

LW3/L.Upendar, LW4/L.Yellamma and LW5/L.Venkatesh. She sent the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination. Subsequently, she received

Ex.P9/postmortem certificate.

14) As per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P4/Report of

PW1, Ex.P8/inquest report and Ex.P9/postmortem certificate of the deceased, it is disclosed that while the deceased was sleeping on the middle lane of

BRTS road, he met with an accident by the crime two wheeler bearing No. AP 16 CZ 7095, resulting in, he sustained grievous injuries and died at the place of accident. The accused did not deny the said oral as well as the documentary evidence in respect of the accident to the deceased by the crime vehicle, grievous injuries sustained by the deceased and also the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident. It is settled law that the facts which are not denied by the accused are deemed to be proved.

15) In respect of rash or negligent riding of crime vehicle at the time of accident, as per the evidence of PW1, the deceased slept on the middle lane of BRTS Road which is not meant for plying vehicles. Since the said lane is not meant for vehicles, plying of crime vehicle on the said lane and ran over the deceased is nothing but negligence of the rider of crime vehicle. PW1 further deposed that the rider of crime vehicle rode the same at high speed and ran over the deceased. Though PW1 did not depose the exact speed of vehicle, riding of vehicle at high speed on a lane which is not meant for vehicle is nothing but rash and negligent riding of vehicle and caused the accident.

CC.No.1705/20218/10 Dated 08.04.2026

The accused did not deny the said evidence of PW1 and there is no cross- examination of PW1. Hence, this Court is of opinion that the rider of crime two wheeler rode the vehicle in rash as well as negligent manner and caused the accident.

16) However, the contentions of the accused are that he is not the rider of crime two wheeler at the time of accident and he was falsely implicated in this case. In order to connect the accused to the crime two wheeler as its rider at the time of accident, PW3/Investigating Officer deposed that on 20.08.2020 when she was in Police Station, the accused himself surrendered before her and produced the record of crime motorcycle i.e., Honda Activa two wheeler bearing No. AP 16 CZ 7095. She served notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C on the accused and obtained reply. She gave requisition to the Motor Vehicle

Inspector for inspection of crime vehicle and subsequently, received the MVI

Accident Report/Ex.P10. As per Ex.P10, the accident was not occurred due to mechanical defects of crime vehicle.

17) The accused denied the said evidence of PW3 and contended that he himself did not surrender before PW3. Though PW3/Investigating Officer deposed that the accused is the rider of crime vehicle, she did not produce any document to connect the accused is the crime vehicle. However, to prove its allegations, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1, and 2. PW1 deposed that he did not observe the rider of crime vehicle. Moreover, PW1 deposed that his signature was obtained on a written paper in the hospital, but he does not know the contents of said written paper. Ex.P1 is his signature on the Report,

dated 05.08.2020. PW2 deposed that PW1 informed her that he did not

observe the rider of crime motorcycle.

CC.No.1705/20219/10 Dated 08.04.2026

18) Since Pws.1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution to establish that the accused is the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident, the learned A.P.P was permitted to put questions to them in the form of cross- examination as per the provision u/Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act. Even during the said questions, they did not support the case of prosecution and denied their respective suggestions. The statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C of

Pws.1 and 2 are marked as Exs.P2 and P3. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove that the accused is the rider of crime vehicle bearing No. AP 16 CZ 7095 and he rode the same in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident.

19) In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court holds that the prosecution established that the deceased by name L.Chandu met with an accident by the crime two wheeler ie., Honda Activa bearing No. AP 16 CZ 7095, sustained grievous injuries and died of injuries and the rider of crime vehicle rode the same in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident; but, it failed to establish that the accused is the rider of crime vehicle at the time of accident and as such, he is entitled for acquittal. The Point is answered accordingly.

20) IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the same u/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per the provision u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

22) There is no order for disposal of the property as no property was

CC.No.1705/202110/10 Dated 08.04.2026

seized and produced before the Court.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 8th day of April, 2026. Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : N.Madhu -None- P.W.2 : L.Lavanya P.W.3 : K.Sarala

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on the report, dt.5.8.2020. Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1. Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2. Ex.P4 : Report of PW1. Ex.P5 : First Information Report. Ex.P6 : Scene Observation Report. Ex.P7 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P8 : Inquest report. Ex.P9 : Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P10: Motor Vehicle Inspector Accident Report.

For Defence: - Nil -

M.Os. MARKED -Nil-

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III A.C.J.M, VJA.

CC.No.4169/241/9 Dated 10.04.2026

APKR050047402024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No.4169/2024

1.Date of offence02.09.2023

2.Date of report30.09.2023

3.Date of apprehension of -- accused

4.Date of release on bail--

5.Date of commencement of trial24.02.2026

6.Date of closure of trial26.03.2026

7.Date of JUDGMENT10.04.2026

8.Name of the ComplainantS.I.of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City.

9.Name of the Accused Cheveti Sumanth, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 20 years, D.No.18-10, Damelavari Street, VTC Kondapalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam (M), NTR District. Rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 40 H 3522.

10.Offence u/S.304-A of IPC

11.FINDING Not guilty

12.SENTENCE Acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C

13.Explanation for Delay: Cognizance of offence was taken under Section

CC.No.4169/242/9 Dated 10.04.2026

304-A of IPC against the accused on 05.11.2024. Copies are furnished to the accused on 21.04.2025. On 17.09.2025 accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. On 24.01.2026 P.W.1 is examined and Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. On 03.03.2026 P.W.2 is examined and Ex.P3 is marked. On 26.03.2026 P.W.3 is examined and Exs.P4 to P9 are marked and prosecution evidence is closed.

On 31.03.2026 accused is examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and heard the arguments. Judgment is pronounced on 10.04.2026. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. Copy to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Vijayawada. Copy to the Accused.

CC.No.4169/243/9 Dated 10.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

VIJAYAWADA

Present: - Sri P.Tirumala Rao,

III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.4169/2024

Between :

Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, ...Complainant

Vijayawada City.

And

Cheveti Sumanth, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 20 years, D.No.18-10, Damelavari Street, VTC Kondapalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam (M), NTR District.

Rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 40 H 3522.….Accused

This case is coming on 31.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri K.Chanti Babu, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Police Station filed police report against the accused in Cr.No.685/2023 for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC.

2. The brief allegations in the police report are as follows:

CC.No.4169/244/9 Dated 10.04.2026

2.a) On 02.09.2023 at about 8.30 p.m while the deceased by name Musalaiah was crossing NH-30 road, near Tyres shop at New Gate,

Kondapalli Village, the accused being the rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 40 H 3522, rode the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down, sustained grievous bleeding injury to the left side back of his head, to his right leg and went into unconscious state. The deceased was shifted to the Government General

Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment wherein he died on 03.09.2023.

LW1/B.Guravamma (PW1) gave report to the Police.

2.b) LW12/M.Srinivasa Rao/ASI of Police (PW3) received the said report, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.685/2023 and took-up investigation. He visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of two mediators and scene observation report was prepared. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. He examined and recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses. He visited the Government General

Hospital, Vijayawada, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and inquest report was prepared. He sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. LW13/U.Papa

Rao/S.I. of Police tool-up further investigation. He served notice u/Sec.41-A of

Cr.P.C on the accused and obtained reply. LW11/C.Geethanjali/Asst. Motor

Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI Accident

Report. LW10/Dr.M.Mahesh/Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Postmortem Report. After completion of investigation, LW13/U.Papa Rao/S.I of Police filed police report. Thus, the accused is liable for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC. Hence, the

Charge.

3) Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC against the accused.

CC.No.4169/245/9 Dated 10.04.2026

4) On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5) The accused was examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under

Sec.304-A of IPC in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 3. Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8) Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9) Now, the points for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable under

Sec.304-A of IPC, as alleged by the prosecution?

10) POINT :

In order to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused being the rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 40 H 3522, rode the same in rash or negligent manner and ran over the deceased by name Musalaiah, while he was crossing the road, resulting in, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed to injuries and thereby, the accused committed the

CC.No.4169/246/9 Dated 10.04.2026

offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P1 to

P9.

11) PW1 who is the wife of deceased deposed that on 02.09.2023 during night time, LW3/B.Anji informed that her husband met with an accident by a motorcycle bearing No.AP 40 H 3522 on NH 30 road, near tyres shop at

New gate, Kondapalli Village. Immediately she visited the place of accident and noticed her husband with head injury in unconscious state. They shifted her husband to the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment.

On the next day morning her husband succumbed to injuries. She was informed that while the deceased was proceeding on foot, the said motorcycle dashed him. She gave Ex.P1/report to the Police.

12) PW3/Investigating Officer deposed that on 03.09.2023 at about 10.00 a.m LW13/U.Papa Rao, S.I of Police received Ex.P1/report from PW1 and registered Ex.P1 as a case in Cr.No.685/2023 u/Sec.304-A of IPC and submitted Ex.P4/FIR to all concerned; took up investigation, examined and recorded the statement of PW1 in Police Station. He further deposed that on the instructions of LW13/U.Papa Rao, he took-up investigation. He visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of two mediators i.e.,

LW7/T.Guravaih and LW8/D.S.Ganga. Ex.P5/scene observation report was prepared. He prepared Ex.P6/rough sketch of the scene of offence. On the same day he visited the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada and held inquest over the dead body of deceased by name Musalaiah in the presence of inquest panchayatdars i.e. LW7/T.Guravaih, LW8/D.S.Ganga and

LW9/B.Narasimha Rao. Ex.P7/inquest report was prepared. He sent the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination. During inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of LW2/B.Ramu, LW3/B.Anji, PW2,

LW5/U.Gayatri and LW6/U.Naga Raju. Subsequently Ex.P8/postmortem

CC.No.4169/247/9 Dated 10.04.2026

certificate was received.

13) As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 coupled with Ex.P1/Report of

PW1, Ex.P7/inquest report and Ex.P8/postmortem certificate of the deceased, it is disclosed that while the deceased was crossing the road, he met with an accident by the crime motorcycle bearing No. AP 40 H 3522, resulting in, he sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital, while undergoing treatment. The accused did not deny the said evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. It is also not the case of accused that there was no such accident by the crime motorcycle and the deceased did not die of injuries sustained in the accident.

The contentions of the accused are that he is not the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident and he did not drive the same in rash or negligent manner and he was falsely implicated in this case to help the dependents of the deceased in getting insurance amount.

14) In order to establish that the accused is the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident, PW3/Investigating Officerdeposed that when LW13/U.Papa Rao/S.I of Police was present in Police Station, the accused himself surrendered before him and produced the record of crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No. AP 40 H 3522. He served notice under

Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C on the accused and obtained reply. The accused denied the evidence of PW3 and contended that he himself did not surrender before

LW13/SI of Police and he was falsely implicated in this case.

15) As per the said evidence of PW3, the accused is the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident. Where the accused contended that he is not the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident and he was falsely implicated in this case, it is the duty of PW3 to produce any document to connect the accused to the crime vehicle, but no such document is filed.

However, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2. PW1 deposed that she was

CC.No.4169/248/9 Dated 10.04.2026

not informed by anybody including LW3/B.Anji about the rider of crime vehicle.

PW2 deposed that he did not witness the accident and he does not know anything about the accident. Hence, absolutely there is no document or any other oral evidence of witnesses in support of the evidence of P.W.3/

Investigating Officer to connect the accused to the crime vehicle as its rider.

Hence, this Court is of opinion that the sole testimony of PW3 is not sufficient to establish that the accused is the rider of crime motorcycle at the time of accident.

16) With regard to rash or negligent riding of crime motorcycle at the time of accident is concerned, PW1 deposed that she was not informed by anybody as to the exact manner of accident. PW2 deposed that he did not witness the accident and he does not know anything about the accident.

Admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 2 are not eye witnesses to the accident. Since Pws.1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution in respect of identity of accused and also rash or negligent riding of crime motorcycle by the accused, the learned A.P.P was permitted to put questions to them in the form of cross- examination as per the provision u/Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act. Even during the said questions, they did not support the case of prosecution and denied their respective suggestions. Hence, the statements u/Sec.161 of

Cr.P.C of Pws.1 and 2 are marked as Exs.P2 and P3. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish that the rider of crime motorcycle rode the same in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident.

17) In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court holds that the prosecution established that the deceased by name Musalaiah met with an accident by the crime motorcycle bearing No. AP 40 H 3522, sustained grievous injuries and died of injuries; but it failed to establish that the accused is the rider of crime vehicle at the time of accident and he rode the same in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident and as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The Point is answered accordingly.

CC.No.4169/249/9 Dated 10.04.2026

18) IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the same u/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per the provision u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

19) There is no order for disposal of the property as no property was seized and produced before the Court.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 10th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : B.Guravamma -None- P.W.2 : M.Nagendra Babu P.W.3 : M.Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report of PW1. Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1. Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2. Ex.P4 : First Information Report. Ex.P5 : Scene Observation Report. Ex.P6 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P7 : Inquest report. Ex.P8 : Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P9: Motor Vehicle Inspector Accident Report. For Defence: - Nil -

M.Os. MARKED -Nil- Sd/- P.Tirumala Rao,

III A.C.J.M, VJA.